5 ms·
So, you are put on a crazy muslim's hit list. Do you A. Run? B. Fight?
by TGJ 16y ago
So, you are put on a crazy muslim's hit list.
Do you
A. Run?
B. Fight?
- Vivtek 16y agoC. Realize that a crazy fundamentalist does not have battalions of assassins at his beck and call. (Although honestly, I don't know what specific events caused the FBI to believe that this artist required anonymization.)
- TGJ 16y agoSo you don't worry about a guy so dangerous that the US government has put him on a 'kill' list? http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/people/a/anwar_al_awlaki/index.html http://topics.nytimes.com/topics/reference/timestopics/peopl... "The Obama administration's decision to authorize the killing by the Central Intelligence Agency of a terrorism suspect who is an American citizen"
- viggity 16y agoTheo Van Gogh and can attest that battalions of assassins aren't needed in order to be murdered.
- natrius 16y agoActually, he can't.
- harshpotatoes 16y agohttp://jp.dk/uknews/article1263133.ece http://jp.dk/uknews/article1263133.ece There are some instances where people chose to pick up a weapon and attempt to kill people because some fundamentalist said so.
- rdl 16y agoShe lives in Washington, so I'd take "reasonable precautions" with a threat like that, but not go overboard. You can get a concealed pistol license on a shall-issue basis in WA (I have one, it took about an hour), pick up a gen3 glock 19 and holster, take a couple Massad Ayoob LFI classes, get an unlisted phone number and an alarm system for your house, register some stuff to a PO box vs. a home address, and that's pretty much enough for any non-specific non-state threat. And even that is probably overkill.
- jat850 16y agoObtaining, training with, and carrying a firearm are not "reasonable precautions" for a lot of people.
- rdl 16y agoI absolutely agree, for the average citizen of a first world nation who isn't at any particular special risk. However, when you face a credible death threat for your (principled, honorable) actions, you have the choice of backing down, running, or standing your ground. If you're going to stand your ground, it is prudent to be armed. During the Civil Rights movement in the south, Rabbi William B. Silverman stood up for the rights of blacks. Some racists threatened him and his children. Instead of backing down or running away, he got a .38spl revolver (and became a deputy sheriff), and drove his kids to school every day vs. having them ride the bus; no one touched him. From a practical perspective, is it a bigger sacrifice to change your name, give up your job, and go into hiding, or to spend a few thousand dollars becoming credibly able to defend yourself with a firearm?
- jat850 16y agoSorry, I didn't write very clearly in my post. What I meant to imply (and did poorly) is that many people, no matter what, would not be comfortable with the notion of picking up a gun in the name of self defense. You sound like you would, I know I would, but there holds a large body of people for whom that is just not an option they would pursue. Those with a doctrine of non-violence, turning the other cheek, etc., are the people I have in mind.
- rdl 16y agoDefinitely, those people exist. I would not advise those people to pick fights with terrorists.
- hugh3 16y agoI think those are more reasonable precautions than changing your name and going into hiding. However, owning and carrying a firearm is a great defence against muggers and burglars, but a lousy defence against assassins. The thing about gunfights is that the guy who shoots first has a huge advantage.